My friend has done IVF. eggs removed from wife, fertilise by him, reinserted, little baby Catholic is born. maybe - i didn't ask - some eggs were lost. but the Church, he has discovered, say that this is a Mortal Sin.

is this correct?

(This question was asked by someone in another thread and posted here by myself)

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003

Answers

Bump

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

Ed - I feel it is blessing that this took place with your friend. Our current Pope acknowledges the benefits of science. The days are where theologians and their views belittling the benefits are going away slowly.

My hope is your friends enjoy the wonderful gift from God The Father. Sinfull no - Joyous YES!!

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 25, 2003.

Your point is well-taken Jean, however, there is one problem. In IVF there is loss of life (ie. unused frozen embryos are discarded). So there is a consequence to this.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

Let's start this topic off with what the catechism has to say:

2375. "Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed 'at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.'[CDF, Donum vitae intro., 2.]"

2376. "Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' 'right to become a father and a mother only through each other.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 1.]"

2377. "Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that 'entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 5.] 'Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 4.]"

2378. "A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The 'supreme gift of marriage' is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged 'right to a child' would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right 'to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,' and 'the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 8.]"

2379. "The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others. "

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

The topic of in vitro fertilization has been addressed by the Church (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in this document from Feb, 1987.

Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation – Donum vitae

Because human lives are purposely killed (the sanitized word is 'discarded'), the use of IVF is morally unacceptable.

For purposes of comparison, one could look to the Spartans who--when new babies were born--examined them and decided whether they would kill some newborns for not appearing healthy enough. The Spartan's goal (maintaining a healthy population) was good, though the means to achieve the goal (killing newborns who appeared unhealthy) was totally immoral.

One considering IVF might ask himself or herself the question: should I use an immoral means (killing other human beings) to achieve my personal goal of being a father or mother?

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 25, 2003.

As you can see, the Church will only condone those reproductive technologies that enable a couple to have a child without intervention in the act of conception by a third party.

Now, as to the question of whether a couple who "suffers" from childlessness and who employs IVF commits mortal sin, this is very difficult to answer. No one can judge who does and who does not commit mortal sin accept for God. No one, except for God knows what lies in the hearts of men. Many factors have to be taken into account.

For mortal sin to take place, three conditions must exist: 1.) Grave matter. 2.) Full knowledge 3.) Deliberate consent. In this instance full knowledge and deliberate consent would presuppose knowledge of the sinful character of this act by the couple and a clear desire to go against the will of God. To sin, there must be a wilful turning away from God. In the emotional turmoil childless couples find themselves in desiring children, one can argue as to the their objective state of mind when committing the act. I guess question could best answered with another question. What would God’s reaction be if He were presented with the gift of a new soul destined to love and praise Him forever by an adoring couple who used means to bring about this new life in ways not approved by the Church? What would He say of those embryos whom were not allowed to live life to the fullest?

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

Or, one might ask "What would God's reaction be if He were presented with a half dozen new souls who were destined to love and praise Him forever, but whose destinies were ruthlessly destroyed by a couple willing to kill several of their own children, so that they might have the pleasure of raising one"? God told the Church "he who hears you hears Me". Therefore, "not approved by the Church" means "not approved by God".

The truth is readily available. If a couple acts without full knowledge, when such information is readily available for the asking, then they are fully culpable for their actions. Self-chosen ignorance is never a viable defense.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 25, 2003.

Well said Paul. I did not mean to give the impression that a couple will not be culpable for their actions; but, you will agree, sin is not always as black and white as that. You can’t claim someone is “fully culpable for their actions” simply because full knowledge or truth was available to them. The Church recognises there are many more factors at play. Sin is much more complicated than this.

While the catechism agrees with you in part, it also states that “unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove imputability of a grave offence.” and while, “no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of moral law...; the promptings of feelings and passions can diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological (compulsive) disorders (CCC 1860). After all, we are only human and the Church recognises this.

This is why, while acknowledging our inability to judge sin accurately, we can, for example with confidence, assure a teenager who masturbates frequently that he is not doomed to certain perdition, even though he’s been told by his elders it is a grave sin; in the same manner that we can say to a couple who have utilised IVF, that in light of mitigating factors that may have been at play, they are not necessarily fully culpable for their actions simply because full knowledge was available to them.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

Ed - When ejecualtion takes place many thousandsof spermatzoa are release with only one single fertile egg to connect with. Ques: Surely God in His Wisdom is aware of this. Are we to think those that did not make contact are sinful. Hello?

Makes me think of the medieval argument of " How many angels are able to dance on the head of pin. " I have had a vesictomy - does that make me sinful everytime I experience intercourse? Or is it an act of a responsible man who no longer wants a child at the age of 58 and be a father.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 25, 2003.

Dear Ed,

“unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove imputability of a grave offence.”

Yes. That's what I said. The key word here is "unintentional". If I simply do not bother to look into the matter and discover the readily available objective moral facts concerning a proposed action, and I go ahead and carry out the action anyway in that state of uncertainty or ignorance, then I have freely chosen to be ignorant, and cannot claim that my ignorance is "unintentional". I either choose to seek the truth, or choose not to be concerned about the truth. And, as the old adage goes, not to choose is to choose.

Dear jean,

"Or is it an act of a responsible man who no longer wants a child at the age of 58 and be a father?"

Sin is never a responsible act. Even though your motives may have seemed responsible, the commission of an intrinsically immoral act is never justifiable by good motives. Indeed, most people who commit sins or crimes do so from motives that they personally perceive as good. Deliberate sterilization is a direct violation of the Natural Law, and the moral teaching of the Church, to which all men are responsible before God. For that reason alone it is innately irresponsible. However, no, that does not necessarily make every subsequent act of marital intercourse sinful.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 25, 2003.

LMAO here Paul for the last person I would ever speak to regarding my personal sexual life would be priest. God forbid.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 26, 2003.

Paul, as to the objective moral facts, a couple can have their judgement clouded by emotions and circumstance. If this is the case then they haven’t freely chosen to be ignorant. The Church is merely saying there are other factors involved in their making such a complex and difficult decision that should be taken into account.

“ I either choose to seek the truth, or choose not to be concerned about the truth. And, as the old adage goes, not to choose is to choose.” This sounds like something George W. would espouse, “Either you’re for us or you’re against us!” Tell me Paul, in a black and white world, what colour is the sky?

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 26, 2003.

thanks for the references and input.

i have read "INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN ..... Donum Vitae".

a) it seems true that the Church holds that the human being is created as soon as the egg and the sperm are united. and, therefore, according to our Church any process that involves the destruction of fertlised eggs involves the death of a human.

b) but the "abortion analogy" is the intellectually lazy way to attack the use of IVF.

c) for there are instances where there will be no "unused" or destroyed eggs. it is possible that a patient, aware of the Church's teaching, might specifically ask for only "n" eggs to be removed - and to do so on the basis that they will all be re- patriated in the womb. that is to say, the patient can control the situation and ensure to an almost perfect degree that no human beings are destroyed. (the only risk wold appear to be that the mother dies before the eggs are re-inserted; the risk that any pregnant mother takes during gestation.)

d) but no, the Church further holds (the "fundamental/ principled" objection to IVF) that -- "The Church's teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the "inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. ... it is never permitted to separate these different aspects to such a degree as positively to exclude either the procreative intention or the conjugal relation" .

e) this is the deeper/ more basic objection to IVF.

f) and the corollary is that contraception, which also separates the two, is proscribed by the Church - and Donum Vitae states - "Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends of marriage."

g) but the grand anomaly is that, whilst Catholics are (despite the veto on contraception) allowed to enjoy recreational sex employing the Rythm Method, you cannot go to the lengths (time, money, moreover anxiety and despair, and all driven by love...) that IVF require so as to permit you to use the egg/sperm combintion for the purpose which God intended, namely procreation.

h) the other grand anomoly that immediately springs to mind follows this statement from Donum Vitae -- "Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love"

i) now then, you sin and then you get a gift from God? how many other sins directly produce a gift from God? yes, sins result in man-made gifts - money, the "pleasure and thrill" of illicit gambling/sex, and so on - but how can a sin bear a gift from God. this makes no sense to me at all.

j) but for the sin, this Gift would have not been given.

k) yes, i know, the Church says "x" and so therefore God says "x"; but i ask you this -- how much this is "covered" by the infallibility of the Pope. IVF as a process post-dates JPII and (so far as i am aware) the Pope has not clothed any opinion in infallibility (excuse my ignorance if this is wrong). if it is not infallible, then it is "fallible". sorry, getting carried away here. but you see the point.

(forgive me Father)

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 26, 2003.

Jean, if I understand your second-last post correctly, either you or I have our facts wrong. We’re not talking here about all the other sperms cells that have been unsuccessful in attaching to an egg cell. While I am not a scientist, correct me if I am wrong but, in the process of IVF I believe several sperm are mated to egg cells by a third party creating several embryos. These embryos, now alive, are kept on hand to be used in the event that the first “treatment (s) are unsuccessful. Once an embryo has been “trans-planted” successfully, the remaining embryos are destroyed. Embryos are new life. They have developed past the point of conception. To destroy such life is contrary to God’s law.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 26, 2003.

if ALL such embryos are used, then the easier argument, premised on the embryo constituting human life, does not apply. usually >>>1 embryo needs be repatriated before 1 life is sustained in the womb, the attrition rate amongst embryos re-inserted in the womb being very high. so take the simple case where all "man-made" ambryos are re-inserted.

now, if you do not "kill the embryos" as in this (perfectly viable) example, there is no abortion analogy - just the more fundamental belief that you can only have sex to have babies (and vice-versa).

sorry in advance, if i am either unclear or technically deficient in my explanation.

-- Ian (ib@vertogfo.com), March 26, 2003.

From Donum Vitae:

"These reasons enable us to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so- called "simple case", i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to it."

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 26, 2003.

The issue has a lot of different angles to it. On one hand, the Church teaches that all children - from the moment of conception, are sacred and must be protected and nurtured...

But IVF (which by the way proves that Abortion is truly murder since conception takes place in a petri dish, and not in "the mother", thus the newly procreated life is not at all "part of the woman's body!), normally produces more than one embryo -

So the means by which would-be parents seek children is wrong because "extra" embryos are routinely procreated - and then discarded. This would not happen in natural procreation.

It may also be harmful biologically. Why? well look at the physics involved: scientists arbitrarily select one sperm from 500 million or so - a) how does he know that particular sperm is healthy? In natural relations only a couple million are strong enough to reach the egg - so evolution (survival of the fittest) is annulled by arbitrary selection. and b) the scientist penetrates the egg's wall to squirt the sperm's DNA into it. But in natural procreation the egg "allows" just one sperm to penetrate its wall - One wonder's why. But IVF completely bypasses this legitimate biological question in the quest for the "end result".

Jean, do you normally believe that the end justifies the means?

Just because it "works" doesn't mean there are no side-effects. We don't even have a long term study on the health of IVF children into adulthood... so just because science "can do it" doesn't mean it's the safest or best way to "do it".

Finally a note about the Church and children: the child conceived from rape or incest is just as sacred as the child conceived by a married couple in the Church's theology. Yet "modern morality" says that such children should routinuely be aborted.

Now people who claim "abortion in the case of rape or incest" are focused on the "woman" - just as the pro-IVF people are focused on the parents.... yet the problem with this, is that the child is treated as a commodity or a threat.

Sure they say "it's a gift" - but how many people give themselves a gift?

There are better ways to deal with infertility than procreating a bunch of embryos in a petri dish.

In the natural way, we can truly say: you were choosen by God for existence... in the IVF way it becomes: we chose you, we designed you. we controlled the time, place, and manner in which you became to be... you are our creation, our child - not a sovereign gift.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

Ian writes:

"but the grand anomaly is that, whilst Catholics are (despite the veto on contraception) allowed to enjoy recreational sex employing the Rythm Method..."

There are a couple mistakes here.

1) Natural Family Planning (NFP) is not the "Rhythm Method."

2) Marriage is not a carte blanche for sex divorced from openness to procreation.

In fact, the Church teaches that NFP is misused when the intent is to totally thwart God' plan (recreational sex). So that you might educate yourself, you may refer to the Couple-to-Couple League's website. They are a support group for NFP.

Ian writes:

"i) now then, you sin and then you get a gift from God? how many other sins directly produce a gift from God? yes, sins result in man-made gifts - money, the "pleasure and thrill" of illicit gambling/sex, and so on - but how can a sin bear a gift from God. this makes no sense to me at all."

As Joe wrote, the sin of rape may produce a child. This child is innocent and is 100% a gift of God. In fact, we don't even need to go to such an extreme. The sins of fornication (sex outside of marriage) and adultery may also result in the creation of a child, a gift of God. The child cannot be used as a justification to somehow nullify the parents' sin.

Ian writes:

"1 embryo needs be repatriated before 1 life is sustained in the womb, the attrition rate amongst embryos re-inserted in the womb being very high."

Even though there may be a parallel where some embryos die and are absorbed into the mother (I don't know how often this occurs), the difference here is intent: the doctor and parents intend that many of these embryos die to achieve their end.

You also wrote about the possible hypothetical (paraphrasing), "What if no embryos were created and killed?" This would remove the moral equivalence to abortion. You've already pointed out the specific quotes from Donum Vitae.

I'd just add this. Today, for financial reasons, couples choosing IVF create more fertilized eggs in order to increase their chances for success. It's all about money: I'm investing in IVF so I can get a good return on investment. If moral considerations were more important (no discarded embryos), the success rate would plummet.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 26, 2003.

I wrote, "I'm investing in IVF so I can get a good return on investment."

Of course this is a hypothetical "I." :-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 26, 2003.

Mateo

Whether or not "Rythm" is the correct phrase (it is used in Humanae Vitae -- "the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions"), the effect of the carve out is to allow sex where there is no intention, indeed quite the opposite, that fertilization should occur. now, why oh why, are the relevant NFP couple having sex at that time? something to do? to keep eveything in good working order in case it's needed? or to enjoy the beauty of a most marvellous and intimate act of love, that is indeed a celebration of mutual love, at a time when they know and hope that no child will result? i would imagine the latter.

now, HV provides a number of possible reasons why couples might be allowed to "procreate" when there is close to 0% chance of conception:-

"In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth"

-- so if the couple have had some kids, and decide that they can afford no more (or if they cannot afford to keep any kids in a way that amounts to responsible parenthood) -- or for the other reasons stated.

the first point is this: the celebration of the intimate act of love using NFP is recreational sex which ever way you cut it.

and this is a derogation from the underlying thesis that is set forth in Donum Vitae: the "inseparable connection...between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning."

the "anomaly" i see is this -- why is there a carve out going in one direction that allows a couple to limit their production of kids, but there is none that goes the other way when a loving couple want to experience the gift of God. clearly the underlying thesis is pliable.

i fully accept that "marriage is not a carte blanche for sex divorced from openness to procreation", but HV does allow the couple to engage in recreational sex. and, in doing so, they engage in a sequence of love making that cannot be said to be natural, measuring temperatures or whatever, adjusting for long or short menstruation periods,..... love making with no real prospect of kids. but good people who want kids are told that the penis must enter the vagina etc etc cos that's natural.

turning to the rewarding of sin by the gift of a child, please remember that the gift is rarely welcome in the case of rape or extra-marital infidelity. i do accept, however, that other situations can be constructed that closely resemble the point i make. for example, a young couple cannot wait to get married to have a baby and so concieve outside marriage - same result, sin "rewarded by child". IOW, what you say sounds convincing -- the child cannot be used as a justification to somehow nullify the parents' sin. thank you.

i find this statement (yours) rather puzzling: "the doctor and parents intend that many of these embryos die to achieve their end."

please bear in mind that about 30% of all conceptions (non-IVF) result in miscarriage in the first 3 months. are you saying that the respective couples intended for this to happen? surely the hope of the IVF patient and doctor is that all eggs fertilise and take root in the womb - but the realistic expectation is that some will flounder. yes, there is some degree of statistical inference involved in the process -- if you try to fertilise 5 eggs, maybe 3 will fertilise; and if you put all 3 back in the womb, maybe only 1 will result in a baby. just as if you wife tells you she's pregnant, you may wish to keep it secret for some months until she has carried it beyond the riskiest period.

btw, the point that removes the moral equivalence to abortion is not hypothetical. it is feasible and ths might be why it is recognised in Donum Vitae.

As for your final point, "Today, for financial reasons, couples choosing IVF create more fertilized eggs in order to increase their chances for success. It's all about money: I'm investing in IVF so I can get a good return on investment. If moral considerations were more important (no discarded embryos), the success rate would plummet."

this is presumably a personal opinion. my personal opinion is that it should be possible to structure an IVF treatment that is consistent with the anti-abortion principles. this would require an understanding from the couple concerned that ALL eggs that did fertilise would be put back in the womb. this would be the operative limitation on the process. it is however a perfectly viable strategy.

finally, one point that Joe makes that i find confusing: "But IVF (which by the way proves that Abortion is truly murder since conception takes place in a petri dish, and not in "the mother", thus the newly procreated life is not at all "part of the woman's body!)"

for there to be murder, there must be death - so where do successful IVF births come from? are they miracles? no, Donum Vitae recognises that the abortion issue arises when embryos are discarded, not when they are made in a test-tube.

please bear in mind that i am describing a perceived anomaly and attempting to further my education - not attacking the Church's teachings.

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 26, 2003.

forgive me Joe, you were talking about "murder" as in the "offence under the criminal law" -- which occurs where a "person" is killed outside the womb (hence the abominable "partial abortion" techniques). yes, i now understand yr point.

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 26, 2003.

Hi Ian,

You write:

"Whether or not "Rythm" is the correct phrase (it is used in Humanae Vitae -- "the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions")"

Mentioning "natural rhythms" is also different from the "rhythm method." In other words, all women have "natural rhythms," whether or not they use the rhythm method. Anyway, my point is that the rhythm method is different from what is currently taught and used by those who practice natural family planning. Back in the 1960s, a technique (or family of techniques) called the "sympto-thermal method."

Anyway, a number of the issues you raise regarding the morality of NFP are addressed by people more knowledgeable than me. For example, the book "The Art of Natural Family Planning" is a great start.

You write:

"the celebration of the intimate act of love using NFP is recreational sex which ever way you cut it.

From the Catechism, we see the following:

2370 - "Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality."

So, according to the Catechism (paragraph 2370), "periodic continence...is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality." Regarding what "recreational sex" means: I think (personally) that chastity is characterized by mutual self-giving, while "recreational sex" is mutual taking. It's our own honesty with ourselves that reveals which characterize our own lives.

Here's more on Church teachings regarding NFP and contraception.

You write:

"btw, the point that removes the moral equivalence to abortion is not hypothetical."

I agree.

You write:

"my personal opinion is that it should be possible to structure an IVF treatment that is consistent with the anti-abortion principles."

Notwithstanding the Church teachings on such a treatment, I still believe that such a treatment would have a much lower success rate, therefore costing couples much more $$ and time.

Regarding IVF, the best I can do is point you in the direction of Church documents. My personal opinions don't mean much. :-)

Here's a search on EWTN with some relevant articles.

God bless you!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 26, 2003.

Ian

"i am describing a perceived anomaly"

From my limited reading of church techings on contraception and IVF I can only say you wont be the first person to see an anomally . The more I read, the less faith I have and the more troubled and disturbed I become.

Perhaps I just dont get it but there are just so many obvious flaws and double standards in Catholic techings on these issues that I cannot in good conscience believe they are the full truth. I do not believe that *artifical* (as oppposed to "natural"!) contraception, IVF steralisation etc are in themselves wrong or evil. Wrongdoing is determined by intent IMHO, I am currently trying to understand better the churchs position but it truely seems a complete farce to me.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.

"My personal opinions don't mean much"

Mateo what do you mean by this statement, that our conscience should be considered inferior to church law? Considering that your personal opinion is very informed why doesnt it "mean much"? Are you just being modest? I agree when placed against 2000 years of the finest minds and guidance from the holy spirit our personal opinions may look a bit thin but certainly your heart should not be ignored!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.

Hi Kiwi,

Thank you for the kind words. And, I agree with you (and I think with Ian) that these are tough issues to understand 100% and conform with the Church teachings.

Regarding my "personal opinions," I really meant that my own experience and understanding of IVF is limited, and so I can't answer the challenge to explain many of the nuances of the issue. That's all! :-)

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 26, 2003.

In order to understand why IVF goes against the will of God, a much larger issue has to be addressed. The issue of the meaning and purpose of life needs to be understood in order to see where IVF falls in relation to it. Donum Vitae, in part, was written to answer this puzzle. If we can understand what the meaning and purpose to life is, we can then take that understanding and test it against our everyday beliefs and conduct (including IVF), and see if they are proper and moral according our purpose and state in life.

God created the world in such a way that all of life tends toward God. We know that’s the way God wanted it, because that’s the way He created it! The purpose of life is not to glorify one’s self or to glorify others, or to glorigy life itself by creating more life; but rather, to glorify and serve God. Life isn’t about us, it’s about God. It's about our purpose here and what our Creator created us for. Life is all about God and not about us. Our lives are about what God wants from us. God wants beings to know Him and to love Him in this world and to be with Him in the next. In our walk in life we oftentimes lose sight of this.

When we say, “but the "abortion analogy" is the intellectually lazy way to attack the use of IVF.”, we fail to recognize that no one gets into Heaven based on their I.Q. It's not about reason. The criteria for Heaven is based on moral good and the practice of exercising charity for love of God and love of others. Embryos are living human beings and, if left undisturbed in their natural environment, will enjoy the fullness of life. They then, no less demand love and respect from everyone else the way we all do.

Marriage is a gift from God. The love God has for us is mirrored in the love the two partners have for each other. There are two inseparable purposes to marriage - the unitive purpose and the procreative purpose. If the two meanings of the conjugal act within marriage are separated, as in IVF, the whole of the gift is corrupted. The sum of the parts then does not necessarily equal the whole that God intended. This is also the reason why contraception goes against the will of God.

In creating new life, if procreation is separated from the unitive act in marriage it goes against God's master plan (even if the abortion analogy of frozen discarded embryos is removed). It isn’t about what we want, it’s all about fulfilling God’s plan for us. God has given us the Sacrament of Marriage and structured it in such a way so that it would help to fulfill His plan. To take matters into our own hands is to play God. IVF is immoral. It goes against God’s wishes and His laws. We seem to think we are free to do whatever we want in this life. We have grown so used to the notions of equality and democracy in this world that we apply them to the next one when trying to figure out where we belong in the greater scheme of things. But equality and democracy imply that all members of a society are equal and have an equal say. In the next world all beings are not equal and we have no equal say and democracy has no place. God is the Supreme Being. We have been created by Him and for Him. He sets the rules. He’s created us to love Him and to serve Him - to serve Him. Freedom is not being able to do what you want to do in this life. Freedom is doing what you ought to and MUST do in relation to your purpose and state in life. All members of creation have a responsibility to their purpose and state in life, to their Creator.

In permitting a program of Natural Family Planning, the Church isn’t being inconsistent. She has no problem in allowing anyone to live life within God’s framework utilising the gifts/tools He’s given us. In NFP the two elements of marriage - the unitive and the procreative, are not separated.

In acknowledging that life created through IVF is sacred and therefore demands the same love and respect as life which has been created out of conjugal love, the Church recognises not everyone will obey God’s rules and so, is merely dealing with the consequences of such disobedience.

IVF when carried out with full knowledge and consent is a sin. The wages of sin is death. The gift of God is eternal life. While a by- product of sin can sometimes provide the sinner with some degree of pleasure temporarily (in this case children), it is only momentary and fleeting in the overall scheme of things. The debt sin always has to be paid.

We heard the argument, "How can such the beautiful gift of life be borne out of the sin of IVF? It doesn't make sense. But were it not for the sin, the gift would not exist." In ancient times, if one stole a lamb and sacrificed it up to God, would the lamb cease being a lamb. The act of the gift itself, in God’s eyes would have no value, nevertheless, His attitude toward the lamb would not change. Likewise, when we create new life independent of His plan, the act (sin) is detested, however, His attitude toward another human soul is the same as His attitude toward all other human souls - pure love. If a child is conceived from rape, is that child any less loved by God because of the way in which he/she was created? Yet God still condemns the act in which that child was conceived for it has been taken out of the context of conjugal love and it missing one of the two essential elements. IVF is no different.

Even if you remove the abortion analogy from IVF and you are creating new life destined to praise God forever, in a situation where there were no embryos that would be destroyed, it is still wrong in God’s eyes for the means doesn’t justify the end. Again, one of the essential elements of the God-give gift of conjugal love is missing. Nevertheless, life created by man on his own is no less loved by God. Additionally too, the sin equally, is no less chastised by Him. We are not permitted to play God. IVF is morally wrong because it offends God. IVF, which brings a child into existence is an act not intended by God. “The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person...” (CCC 2377).

Children are intended to be the evidence and product of conjugal love. “parents find in their child a confirmation and completion of their reciprocal self-giving: the child is the living image of their love, the permanent sign of their conjugal union, the living and indissoluble concrete expression of their paternity and maternity, (Donum Vitae). This love reflects the pure love of God. In IVF this is not the case. In IVF, the child created is living testimony to the science of man and not not a reflection of the reciprocal self- giving and oneness the couple shares with each other and with God in marriage. “...human procreation has specific characteristics by virtue of the personal dignity of the parents and of the children: the procreation of a new person, whereby the man and the woman collaborate with the power of the Creator, must be the fruit and the sign of the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their love and of their fidelity.” (Donum Vitae) New life is the “fruit” of “mutual self-giving” and a sign of “love and fidelity”. God intended new life, destined to love and serve Him forever, to be a by-product of that which mirrors Himself. If new life is created outside the bonds of marriage, it is life created from a purpose not intended by God and therefore, go against His plan. This is why it is so inherently wrong even for some people to voluntarily “get together” physically, outside of holy matrimony for the expressed purpose of creating new life. For these same reasons, this argument is no less valid in a laboratory.

Being a parent is a vocation. Part of that vocation is the duty of creating new life through one another. “the bond existing between husband and wife accords the spouses, in an objective and inalienable manner, the exclusive right to become father and mother solely through each other.” (Donum Vitae) In IVF the marriage bond is violated, “conjugal fruitness” is compromised and deprived of it’s validity and integrity.

What is Marriage? Marriage is the holy (sanctioned by God) union of a man and a women. Man and woman were made by God, for each other. Marriage is a communion (act of sharing) of each other. God, in His wisdom determined that man should not be alone but rather share his being (two become one flesh) with another equal (bone of my bones) but different (male and female He created them) partner, for two reasons: 1.) unity in oneness, borne out of love that reflects the love of God. 2.) Procreation -the creation of new life for the purpose of glorifying God. Marriage has certain inalienable properties to it given to us by God. Marriage is that vocation which carries out these two conditions or mandates, from God. When couples utilise IVF new life is borne out of a desire to satisfy their own longings rather than to glorify God - to satisfy God's desires. Time and time again we fail to see the correlation between God and man. Man has been made in God’s image and likeness. These are not hollow words. They mean what they say. You can see it in the Trinity - the Father begetting the Son and what happens in this love? It brings forth or spirates the Holy Spirit! Man is an extension of God, made in His image. God loves us so much that He has set it up in such a way that, when in a state of grace, we even become one with Him - we enjoy communion with Him. In actual fact, we don’t just look like or mirror God when in a state of grace, we become God, by virtue of our union with Him as we are taken deeper into His mystery by His abundance of loving grace. (Some will take exception at this - I am not saying we acquire the powers of God.) When in a state of grace, we are assimilated into God. That is why every human being demands the love and respect of others, because in them, they contain the properties of God.

St Paul says God is pure love. We know God is the author of marriage. (CCC 1603) Love then, by deduction, is the author of marriage. God is a complex and beautiful mystery - and so is marriage, for it not only mirrors, but actually contains within it, by virtue of being a sacrament, the pure love of God, Himself. Marriage contains God and when you violate marriage, you violate God.

Marriage is also a reflection of the relationship that God has with us. God wants life created out of the conjugal act in marriage that reflects His love for us. God wants love that is made out of pure love and not out of pure science. Science “establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” (Donum Vitae). Creating life through science is not only contrary to God’s wishes for us to use the conjugal act in the creation of new life, but it is also contrary to the rights inherent in that new life which is created.

God gave us the conjugal act. If he wanted us to reproduce in other ways he would have created us in ways that we could do so. For example, He could have created us in such a way that we reproduce by splitting ourselves in two, in much the same way as amoebas do. But He didn’t do that. He stated, “man needs woman” (Gen. 1:23) and then He acted on that statement - He created her - Eve. God knows what is good for us better than we do. When you take procreation outside of the conjugal act, you go against the will of God, you go against the way in which He wants new life to be created - in a way that mirrors and reflects His love for us. This is why any act of procreation outside of the conjugal act found in marriage, even if it is free of the practice of aborting embryos is still inherently wrong and held to be in violation of God’s will by the Church. The Church has definitively ruled that procreation can only morally be brought about by the marriage union because that is only the way God intended it to be.

The advancement in science and technology has created serious issues surrounding the creation of new life. We must never lose sight of the bigger picture when discerning what is appropriate and acceptable, and what is not. We do not live in a “free” world as some understand it to be. We have responsibilities to our Creator and are expected to conduct our behaviour accordingly. This certainly does not include trying to devise ways in which we can circumvent the will of God.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobla.net), March 28, 2003.

In my humble opinion, this issue is very very simple. When a sperm penetrates the ova and conception occurs, this is the beginning of a new life. Whether this takes place naturally or in a laboratory, this is still a new life. In the case of IVF, the woman's ovaries are over- stimualated so that she produces many ova in her cycle. The 'best of the ova' are chosen, and sperm injected into them, thus if successful many embryos are created. Now, at this point doctors usually would restrict re-implantation to three embryos, because of the dangers of multiple birth. The chance of all of these embryos implanting would be small, and therefore one or two may be lost. The remainder of the embryos are normally frozen, and may be used at a later date. If these embryos are not used at a later date, they may then be discarded. The IVF programme is also used to 'weed out' less than perfect children. embryos with genetic defects are discarded. In certain cases where an illness affects only boys, male embryos are disposed of. etc. It is becoming possible to create the master race. We destroy what God has naturally created, do we know better than God? I think not.

When you discard embryos in this way there is absolutely no difference from aborting an embryo from the womb. None whatsoever. If we cannot morally accept destroying life through abortion, then we cannot accept destroying life through IVF.

Children are a gift, not a right. I have sympathy for childless couples. However, the end never justifies the means.

May God, in His infinite mercy, forgive us our sins.

Sara

-- sara (sara@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.

sara

the point made above is that IVF is possible without the abandonment of embryos; such as, where the patients agree that all eggs shall be re-inserted, whatever that might mean; and, this being so, the issue of abortion does not arise for obvious reasons.

this is all expertly covered in Ed's latest post.

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 30, 2003.

....... but, just to be clear, the Church still regards IVF as sinful, even in such cases -- see Ed's post.

my summary of this is:

"(x) sex is for pro-creating (unless you use NFP); AND

(y) procreation can only be done through sex (but there are no exceptions here that might allow a "victimless IVF procedure)".

just seems ambiguous to me; but its the position.

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 30, 2003.

Ian, you said, "but there are no exceptions here that might allow a "victimless IVF procedure". Please re-read my post. There is a victim, the victim is God.

-- Ed (grader@accglobal.net), March 30, 2003.

NFP can only be used for the responsible spacing of children within the context of a marriage open to the possibility of procreation. If it is used to circumvent or nullify the marital responsibility of openness to procreation, then it's use is immoral, just like the use of artificial birth control. Therefore NFP, responsibly used, is not an alternative to procreation, but rather a natural approach TO responsible procreation.

There is no such thing as victimless IVF. Because of the technical difficulty of the procedure, the unlikelihood of any given embryo implanting successfully, and the high rate of abnormality in embryos produced by IVF, far more embryos are produced than can possibly be utilized. Defective individuals are summarily killed. This is handicapped discrimination in its most elementary, and most destructive form. The remaining embryos, as stated in another post, cannot all be implanted if more than 3 or 4 in number, due to the danger to the mother in the unlikely event that they all implant successfully. Of course, any attempted implants that are not successful result in the death of that baby. The "leftover" babies are then either killed outright, or frozen for later use, or more commonly, later death.

The Church does not offer moral teaching without substantial grounds for doing so.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 30, 2003.

Ed:

i stand corrected. by "victimless" i mean there would be no destroyed/ wasted/ lost embryos; but, even so, on the basis of the Church's teaching that there can be no non-conjugal procreation, then indeed God becomes the victim.

as regards Paul's post, in terms of NFP, its "openess" to procreation is on a par (or thereabouts) with the openess of French letters. without being too crude, they are known to burst; they may also suffer from other defects; and i doubt (i have had no cause to check) that any manufacturer considers or claims them to be 100% effective. NFP is not 100% effective, either, so how do we draw the line between the probability of effectiveness of each technique in light of the need for "openess"; or is openess purely symbolic?

furthermore, HV provides a range of reasons that allow the use of NFP. eg where a couple are low-income, they might decide that they cannot afford any kids and remain wihin HV. they are not spacing their kids. they are just not having any. this applies to any deliberate choice by a couple as to the number of kids they can afford. is this form over substance - and if so, why?

i would need to research further the technicals of IVF and embryo abnormality. but to be clear, my suggestion is that it is possible to construct an approach that does not result in the destruction of an embryo outside the womb. any embryo that dies within the womb is surely a natural death -- consider the 30% of all pregnancies that fail in the first 3 months and become miscarriages. what is the difference. consider also, people who have problems with successive miscarriages. are they sinning if they are pre-advised that miscarriage is extremely likely?

-- Ian (ib@vertigfo.com), March 31, 2003.